What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5235791 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5235791?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5235791?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5235791?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11988402-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5235791 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5235791?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5235791?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5235791?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11988402-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

10A Holdaway Avenue, Northcote, Auckland 0627 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5235791 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Margaret Chin. Both parties had the assistance of a mandarin interpreter.

On 28 April 2025 the Tribunal made an order for exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee. The remaining claims, including the landlord claims, were dismissed.

On 2 May 2025, Yuen Kei applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the Adjudicator ignored the claims of over-occupancy, the rent summary, all evidence regarding damage and theft of property, the tenant’s hostility towards the property manager and the tenant’s lack of credibility.

Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing where “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur”.

Usually the party applying for the rehearing must show that something went wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure, for example, that they did not receive notice of the hearing or they were not able to properly present their case. A rehearing may also be granted where there is new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing, if it could have affected the outcome.

The District Court has held that if the Tribunal was simply wrong in its findings of fact, or its application of the law, this is not sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice: a rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal. Furthermore, a rehearing will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision, or to give them a second opportunity to present their case.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons Yue Kei has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

The landlord’s claim for rent arrears was dismissed due to a lack of evidence in relation to both a rent summary and confirmation of when the next tenancy started.

At the hearing to consider the application for rehearing the landlord had produced a rent summary but when asked why this was not provided at the hearing in April 2025 the agent for the landlord said that she did not know and said that the owner was overseas.

The landlord has still not provided any evidence of when the next tenancy commenced and therefore it is not clear when this one ended. This evidence was required to determine what if any rent arrears were owed by this tenant.

All the remaining of the landlord’s claims were dismissed due to lack of evidence, lack of invoices and no pre tenancy photographs. When asked about the pre tenancy photographs the landlord’s agent said that they were on her phone and in a Weechat conversation. She said that she was not sure whether these had been submitted. The order had clearly stated that no pre tenancy photographs were produced at the earlier hearing.

The landlord has failed to establish that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice may have occurred or is likely to occur. The application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The application for rehearing is dismissed. Yuen Kei

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Margaret Chin. Both parties had the assistance of a mandarin interpreter.
On 28 April 2025 the Tribunal made an order for exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee. The remaining claims, including the landlord claims, were dismissed.
On 2 May 2025, Yuen Kei applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the Adjudicator ignored the claims of over-occupancy, the rent summary, all evidence regarding damage and theft of property, the tenant’s hostility towards the property manager and the tenant’s lack of credibility.
Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing where “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur”.
Usually the party applying for the rehearing must show that something went wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure, for example, that they did not receive notice of the hearing or they were not able to properly present their case. A rehearing may also be granted where there is new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing, if it could have affected the outcome.
The District Court has held that if the Tribunal was simply wrong in its findings of fact, or its application of the law, this is not sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice: a rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal. Furthermore, a rehearing will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision, or to give them a second opportunity to present their case.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons Yue Kei has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears was dismissed due to a lack of evidence in relation to both a rent summary and confirmation of when the next tenancy started.
At the hearing to consider the application for rehearing the landlord had produced a rent summary but when asked why this was not provided at the hearing in April 2025 the agent for the landlord said that she did not know and said that the owner was overseas.
The landlord has still not provided any evidence of when the next tenancy commenced and therefore it is not clear when this one ended. This evidence was required to determine what if any rent arrears were owed by this tenant.
All the remaining of the landlord’s claims were dismissed due to lack of evidence, lack of invoices and no pre tenancy photographs. When asked about the pre tenancy photographs the landlord’s agent said that they were on her phone and in a Weechat conversation. She said that she was not sure whether these had been submitted. The order had clearly stated that no pre tenancy photographs were produced at the earlier hearing.
The landlord has failed to establish that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice may have occurred or is likely to occur. The application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5235791 — Rent arrears at 10A Holdaway Avenue, Northcote, Auckland 0627

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5235791 — Rent arrears at 10A Holdaway Avenue, Northcote, Auckland 0627

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions